The Taliban in Rome

By Alberto G. Romualdez
Malaya Business Insight
May 2, 2012

http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/opinion/2539-the-taliban-in-rome

‘Debates in Congress are generally informed by myths. For example, the reproductive health myth is that all “morning-after” pills are abortifacient.’

THE Talibanic tendencies of conservative Catholic bishops were recently affirmed by the Vatican when it effectively placed the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) under the supervision and control of an “Archbishop Delegate” assisted by two other bishops representing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The LCWR is the largest organization of women religious leaders in the United States with members comprising the representatives of over 80 percent of American Catholic nuns. Just like their Islamic Afghan counterparts, the American bishops are out to suppress the rights of women religious leaders to participate in serious religious discussions.

The Vatican action was taken after years of, sometimes acrimonious, disputes between bishops and the LCWR concerning administrative, doctrinal, and spiritual issues specially the distinction between social involvement and the need to preach correct doctrine. It came on the recommendation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in its “Doctrinal Assessment of the LCWR”, submitted to the Pope (himself a former head of the Congregation) early this year.

True to its mandate as successor to the Roman Inquisition of the 16th century, CDF found the women religious leaders to have “doctrinal problems” serious enough to require the bishops’ intervention after studying the content of addresses at the group’s annual assemblies, letters of the women leaders suggesting dissent from the Church teachings on approaches to sexuality, as well as programs and presentations of the group found to be with “prevalent radical feminist themes”.

With respect to the addresses at annual assemblies, the CDF assessment singled out the 2008 address by then LCWR President Sr. Laurie Brink. In the address, Sr. Laurie, a Dominican nun in her forties with advanced degrees in theology and sociology, suggested a number of options to be pursued by religious who do not agree with current Church teachings. Some of the options she mentioned were found to be doctrinally unacceptable – particularly the suggestion that some religious may choose a life “beyond the Church” or even “beyond Jesus”.

In addition, the “radical feminism” that informed many of the women religious leaders’ position also seriously questioned the Vatican position prohibiting ordination of women and their participation in the doctrinal discussions of the Church at the highest levels. Some documents even suggest the acceptability of marriage for some clergy – a position that are strongly opposed by Church conservatives.

The CDF moreover found “that, while there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States. Further, issues of crucial importance to the life of Church and society, such as the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality, are not part of the LCWR agenda in a way that promotes Church teaching.”

This last finding suggests to some observers that the move against women religious in the United States is somehow connected to the current American political situation. In fact, it is believed that the support for Obama’s health care plan by a LCWR-related social justice advocacy group known as NETWORK appears to have been one of the triggers for the issuance of the stern Vatican decision. One sympathetic blogger cited a BBC News interview several days after the release of the assessment, in which Sister Simone Campbell, Network’s executive director, acknowledged “a strong connection” between NETWORK’s challenge to the US bishops over the ACA and the Vatican accusations.

That there are links in the Catholic doctrinal debates with American politics is further strengthened by a claim made by the architect of the US House of Representatives’ essentially Republican budget plan. Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin claims that his plan, drastically cutting on funds for poor Americans while maintaining tax breaks for wealthy Americans, was inspired by his Catholic faith. Faculty of the Jesuit Georgetown University, referring to the Church’s “preferential option for the poor”, strongly objected to Ryan’s remarks.

The issues in the CDF assessment of women religious leaders, the nexus between political conservatism and religious beliefs, and the global reproductive health debates are also highly relevant to the Philippines. It is likely that these topics will also find their way into the discussions of today’s General Assembly of Catholics for Reproductive Health (C4RH) scheduled at the Asia Institute of Management – particularly given the fact that observers from the organization’s American counterpart, Catholics for Choice, are also participating in the meeting.

***

Debates in both houses of the Philippine Congress are generally informed by myths. For example, the tobacco tax myth is that cheap cigarettes are pro-poor. The reproductive health myth is that all “morning-after” pills are abortifacient.